IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i8p3414-d1122405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techno-Economic Assessment of High-Safety and Cost-Effective Syngas Produced by O 2 -Enriched Air Gasification with 40–70% O 2 Purity

Author

Listed:
  • Siwen Zhang

    (School of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing Institute of Technology, Nanjing 211167, China)

  • Haiming Gu

    (School of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing Institute of Technology, Nanjing 211167, China)

  • Jing Qian

    (School of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing Institute of Technology, Nanjing 211167, China)

  • Wioletta Raróg-Pilecka

    (Department of Chemical Technology, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-664 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Yuan Wang

    (College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Qijing Wu

    (School of Energy and Environment, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China)

  • Hao Zhao

    (College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

Abstract

To strike a better balance between gas quality and production cost of biomass-based syngas, a process for high-safety and cost-effective syngas production is designed and studied, which takes advantage of biomass O 2 -enriched air gasification with 40–70% O 2 purity and methanation synthesis. Based on the simulation data, the process is evaluated from techno-economic aspects, including syngas composition, higher heat value ( HHV ), upper and lower explosive limits ( UEL and LEL ), toxicity, unit production cost ( UPC ) and levelized cost of energy ( LCOE ). Five kinds of biomass are studied as feedstock. The effects of O 2 purity, methanation pressure, feedstock cost, and plant scale are determined, respectively. The results show that O 2 purity is an important parameter for technical performance, while methanation pressure is a minor parameter except for exergy efficiency. With respect to cost indicators, feedstock cost, and plant scale are crucial variables; by contrast, O 2 purity plays a relatively minor role. This process can generate non-toxic syngas containing 33.2–34.9 vol.% CH 4 . The UEL and LEL are about 34% and 12%, and the average explosive range is about 22%. The HHVs of syngas generated from five kinds of feedstock sit between 13.67–14.33 MJ/m 3 , and the exergy efficiency achieves 68.68%. The UPC varies between 0.05 $/Nm 3 and 0.27 $/Nm 3 , and the LCOE varies between 3.78 $/GJ and 18.28 $/GJ. When the plant scale is rational, the process shows strong competitiveness in either UPC or LCOE . The techno-economic results demonstrate that the studied process offers an alternative and sustainable pathway to supply gaseous fuel for low-income areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Siwen Zhang & Haiming Gu & Jing Qian & Wioletta Raróg-Pilecka & Yuan Wang & Qijing Wu & Hao Zhao, 2023. "Techno-Economic Assessment of High-Safety and Cost-Effective Syngas Produced by O 2 -Enriched Air Gasification with 40–70% O 2 Purity," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:8:p:3414-:d:1122405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/8/3414/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/8/3414/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nam, Hyungseok & Maglinao, Amado L. & Capareda, Sergio C. & Rodriguez-Alejandro, David Aaron, 2016. "Enriched-air fluidized bed gasification using bench and pilot scale reactors of dairy manure with sand bedding based on response surface methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 187-199.
    2. Song, Guohui & Xiao, Jun & Zhao, Hao & Shen, Laihong, 2012. "A unified correlation for estimating specific chemical exergy of solid and liquid fuels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 164-173.
    3. Xueliang Yuan & Leping Chen & Xuerou Sheng & Mengyue Liu & Yue Xu & Yuzhou Tang & Qingsong Wang & Qiao Ma & Jian Zuo, 2021. "Life Cycle Cost of Electricity Production: A Comparative Study of Coal-Fired, Biomass, and Wind Power in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Haro, Pedro & Johnsson, Filip & Thunman, Henrik, 2016. "Improved syngas processing for enhanced Bio-SNG production: A techno-economic assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 380-389.
    5. Feng, Fei & Song, Guohui & Shen, Laihong & Xiao, Jun, 2017. "Environmental benefits analysis based on life cycle assessment of rice straw-based synthetic natural gas in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 341-349.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Singlitico, Alessandro & Goggins, Jamie & Monaghan, Rory F.D., 2019. "The role of life cycle assessment in the sustainable transition to a decarbonised gas network through green gas production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 16-28.
    2. Song, Guohui & Xiao, Jun & Yan, Chao & Gu, Haiming & Zhao, Hao, 2022. "Quality of gaseous biofuels: Statistical assessment and guidance on production technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Xiang, Dong & Xiang, Junjie & Sun, Zhe & Cao, Yan, 2017. "The integrated coke-oven gas and pulverized coke gasification for methanol production with highly efficient hydrogen utilization," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(P1), pages 78-91.
    4. Francis Chinweuba Eboh & Peter Ahlström & Tobias Richards, 2017. "Exergy Analysis of Solid Fuel-Fired Heat and Power Plants: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Soltanian, Salman & Kalogirou, Soteris A. & Ranjbari, Meisam & Amiri, Hamid & Mahian, Omid & Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Jafary, Tahereh & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Gupta, Vijai Kumar & Aghaei, Siavash & Pe, 2022. "Exergetic sustainability analysis of municipal solid waste treatment systems: A systematic critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Charalampos Michalakakis & Jeremy Fouillou & Richard C. Lupton & Ana Gonzalez Hernandez & Jonathan M. Cullen, 2021. "Calculating the chemical exergy of materials," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(2), pages 274-287, April.
    7. Mousavi, Seyed Ali & Toopshekan, Ashkan & Mehrpooya, Mehdi & Delpisheh, Mostafa, 2023. "Comprehensive exergetic performance assessment and techno-financial optimization of off-grid hybrid renewable configurations with various dispatch strategies and solar tracking systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 40-63.
    8. Huang, Youwang & Wang, Haiyong & Zhang, Xinghua & Zhang, Qi & Wang, Chenguang & Ma, Longlong, 2022. "Accurate prediction of chemical exergy of technical lignins for exergy-based assessment on sustainable utilization processes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    9. Rodriguez-Alejandro, David A. & Nam, Hyungseok & Maglinao, Amado L. & Capareda, Sergio C. & Aguilera-Alvarado, Alberto F., 2016. "Development of a modified equilibrium model for biomass pilot-scale fluidized bed gasifier performance predictions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1092-1108.
    10. Avinash Vijay & Adam Hawkes, 2017. "The Techno-Economics of Small-Scale Residential Heating in Low Carbon Futures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-23, November.
    11. Feng, Fei & Song, Guohui & Shen, Laihong & Xiao, Jun, 2017. "Environmental benefits analysis based on life cycle assessment of rice straw-based synthetic natural gas in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 341-349.
    12. Chung, Millicent Rosette Wan Yi & Tan, Inn Shi & Foo, Henry Chee Yew & Lam, Man Kee, 2022. "Exergy analysis of a biorefinery process for co-production of third-generation L-lactic acid and electricity from Eucheuma denticulatum residues," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    13. María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Snorri J. Egilsson & Claudio Zuffi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Héctor Leiva, 2023. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Plant for Heat and Electricity Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    14. Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Jakub Jan Zięty & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2023. "External Environmental Costs of Solid Biomass Production against the Legal and Political Background in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-27, May.
    15. Wu, Wei & Taipabu, Muhammad Ikhsan & Chang, Wei-Chen & Viswanathan, Karthickeyan & Xie, Yi-Lin & Kuo, Po-Chih, 2022. "Economic dispatch of torrefied biomass polygeneration systems considering power/SNG grid demands," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 707-719.
    16. Chen, Zhengjie & Ma, Wenhui & Wu, Jijun & Wei, Kuixian & Yang, Xi & Lv, Guoqiang & Xie, Keqiang & Yu, Jie, 2016. "Influence of carbothermic reduction on submerged arc furnace energy efficiency during silicon production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 687-693.
    17. Bidart, Christian & Wichert, Martin & Kolb, Gunther & Held, Michael, 2022. "Biogas catalytic methanation for biomethane production as fuel in freight transport - A carbon footprint assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    18. Gharagheizi, Farhad & Ilani-Kashkouli, Poorandokht & Mohammadi, Amir H. & Ramjugernath, Deresh, 2014. "A group contribution method for determination of the standard molar chemical exergy of organic compounds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 288-297.
    19. Aghbashlo, Mortaza & Tabatabaei, Meisam & Rastegari, Hajar & Ghaziaskar, Hassan S. & Valijanian, Elena, 2018. "Exergy-based optimization of a continuous reactor applied to produce value-added chemicals from glycerol through esterification with acetic acid," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 351-362.
    20. Singlitico, Alessandro & Goggins, Jamie & Monaghan, Rory F.D., 2018. "Evaluation of the potential and geospatial distribution of waste and residues for bio-SNG production: A case study for the Republic of Ireland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 288-301.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:8:p:3414-:d:1122405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.